STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAVTABHAI JORABHAI DUNGAISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgement and order of acquittal dated 30.9.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2000 whereby the present respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 429, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant is keeping goats and sheeps and out of the income, he maintains his family. On 21.9.1999 he took his goats and sheeps to the jungle. In the evening he went to take them back. While going, he met Goklo. While these two brothers were returning towards their village, the complainant counted sheeps and goats when he found that one goat, cost of which was around Rs. 700/-, was missing. On search, he found torso of one goat. While searching, he met Sonaji Sablaji Rabari. He also met his uncle's son Mannabhai Tolaji Rabari. They decided to wait at some distance away from the dead goat to find out who killed the goat. Thereafter, they saw three accused armed with bow and arrow and axe. One of the persons took the dead goat and walked away along with other persons. The complainant and other persons tried to catch hold of the accused who was carrying the goat. The other accused persons aimed an arrow against the deceased and it struck near his left shoulder. The accused persons ran away leaving the goat. The injured person died on the spot. Thereafter, complaint was filed by the complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. He further contended that even though the prosecution produced ample direct and indirect evidence connecting the accused with the crime, the trial Court, without considering the same, acquitted the accused. He further contended that the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses got support from the evidence of the Doctor who performed postmortem of the deceased. He further contended that three eye witnesses have given the name of the accused. He further contended that despite corroborative piece of evidence, namely, recovery of wooden piece on the deceased and three eye witnesses giving name of the accused, the trial Court committed error in acquitting the accused. In that view of the matter, the judgement and order of the trial Court is required to be set aside.